The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[RufusB]

	Quote:	Dougal's Breakfast
	Who wouldn't want to be married to the next Prime Minister?

You, Sir, are a big stirrer...

[fatmanfilms]

I know 52% is not much of a majority,however it's exactly the same percentage that allowed Sweden to join in 1995. I suspect if a super majority was required there would be member countries today.

[lewton]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I know 52% is not much of a majority,however it's exactly the same percentage that allowed Sweden to join in 1995. I suspect if a super majority was required there would be member countries today.

After Sweden voted and before the actual date that it became a member, was there any substantial evidence that the people had changed their mind?
Because it looks like the Brits would now vote to stay.

So the question is:
-is it more democratic to do as the (advisory) referendum decided because it happened?
-or is it more democratic to ask the electorate one more time?

I would like to know if any remainer would answer the 1st option or if any brexiter would answer the 2nd one.

[Reb77Br]

	Quote:	lewton
	-is it more democratic to do as the (advisory) referendum decided because it happened? -or is it more democratic to ask the electorate one more time? I would like to know if any remainer would answer the 1st option or if any brexiter would answer the 2nd one.

I don't think the referendum campaign was clean, so don't believe the referendum was a legitimate democratic exercise.

[RufusB]

	Quote:	Reb77Br
	I don't think the referendum campaign was clean, so don't believe the referendum was a legitimate democratic exercise.

Political campaigns always get at least a little dirty don't they? The big lie on the big bus was always a lie: people chose to believe it anyway.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	RufusB
	Political campaigns always get at least a little dirty don't they? The big lie on the big bus was always a lie: people chose to believe it anyway.

If we have a hard BREXIT without a deal, what was written on the bus could become true.

[Reb77Br]

	Quote:	RufusB
	Political campaigns always get at least a little dirty don't they? The big lie on the big bus was always a lie: people chose to believe it anyway.

For something of such importance, rather than another election to be rerun after a few years, I think it should have been cleaner.

[marton]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	If we have a hard BREXIT without a deal, what was written on the bus could become true.

Only in fantasy land

What was written on the bus was based on UK gross payments to the EU, not the net payment.

But the UK will not save the whole of the net payment because the UK will have to replace or pay for membership of many of the services that the 50 EU agencies and bodies now provide (like European Medicines Agency, European Aviation Safety Agency, EU Open Skies Agreement, et al) plus beefing up existing services like Customs.
How much money will be left over is a good question!

[bowlie]

	Quote:
	Ministers have admitted that more than 150 countries have yet to agree to “roll over” EU deals on everything from trade to flights and nuclear safety after Brexit, triggering a fresh accusation of looming “chaos”. Countries including the USA, Canada, Switzerland and Norway will only be free to give consent once the EU releases them to do so, the government has acknowledged – and no date has yet been set. At stake are more than 750 deals with at least 168 non-EU countries – enjoyed because of EU membership – stretching far beyond trade to airline services, nuclear parts, fisheries, agriculture and data-sharing. Read more Theresa May’s Brexit proposals 'not workable, basically', says EU Aerospace chiefs have already warned that planes with UK-made parts could be grounded if they lose their recognised safety certificates, for example. Now the government has confirmed that none of the 168-odd countries have given “clear agreement” to roll over any deals and that there is no date set for asking them to do so. The UK has agreed that the EU will decide when the process can begin – and Brussels is expected to give the go-ahead only when Theresa May signs a withdrawal agreement. Those negotiations remain deadlocked over avoiding a hard border in Ireland, the EU having rejected the prime minister’s Chequers proposals for future trade. Asked to reveal the number of countries which had promised to roll over agreements, the department for international trade (DIT) said it “does not hold any information relevant to your request”. It said it was up to the EU to “notify the other parties to its international agreements” that it was willing for the UK to still enjoy their benefits, adding: “The notification will issue in due course.” The position was set out in response to a freedom of information (FoI) request submitted by Charles Marquand, a barrister and former Treasury legal adviser, who told The Independent: “We’re now facing a real prospect of chaos. “Regardless of the type of Brexit we end up with, there is very little time to ensure these third countries with which we have agreements are happy to roll them over. Brexit talks: Top issues facing UK on leaving EU Post-Brexit immigration “At the very least, you would expect the government to be finding out how these countries will react – but as it turns out, it seems they just don’t know.” It would take a “legal miracle” to reach agreement with 168 countries by Brexit day next March, given some might have to pass their own legislation, he said. The admission comes despite the prime minister claiming to have reached agreement to replicate an existing deal with six southern African nations, while on her recent trip to the continent. In fact, the small print acknowledged the agreement was not “legally binding” and was “without prejudice” to any changes those countries might demand before it was. The government has acknowledged the risk of a “loss of trade” after Brexit with such countries, admitting they could exploit the opportunity to demand more favourable terms before agreeing a rollover. An analysis earlier this year found the UK, through EU membership, had 49 agreements with Switzerland, 44 with the US and 38 with Norway – part of the 759, across 168 countries. As well as potential renegotiation, a further huge headache will be creating a separate ability for the EU to safeguard nuclear material and certify airline parts or pilots’ licences, for example. Defending its stance, DIT wrote, in the FoI response: “The notification will issue in due course and, following this, third countries will be able to confirm their clear agreement to the continued application of international agreements. “In advance of the notification issuing, a number of countries have already made public statements of support for this approach. “In addition, we are taking forward discussions with third countries to put in place successor agreements which will take effect after the implementation period.”

The Independent ...

[John William]

	Quote:	marton
	Only in fantasy land What was written on the bus was based on UK gross payments to the EU, not the net payment. But the UK will not save the whole of the net payment because the UK will have to replace or pay for membership of many of the services that the 50 EU agencies and bodies now provide (like European Medicines Agency, European Aviation Safety Agency, EU Open Skies Agreement, et al) plus beefing up existing services like Customs. How much money will be left over is a good question!

Beside which Theresa May has already promised billions of pounds to Africa therefore the ( so called ) savings from Brussels from leaving the
EU will never be seen again in the UK anyway.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	lewton
	So the question is: -is it more democratic to do as the (advisory) referendum decided because it happened? -or is it more democratic to ask the electorate one more time? I would like to know if any remainer would answer the 1st option or if any brexiter would answer the 2nd one.

1. The first referendum was orchestrated by a bunch of politicians who've all walked away from acting out the consequences of the result. That in itself, would warrant a second referendum in my book. Any future campaigning would be entirely different to the original because the majority of the lead actors are gone, and the 'audience' are better informed of the consequences.

2. I believe the various stages of the process should be a continuous consultation with the electorate, no matter how laborious it becomes.

[RufusB]

	Quote:	Reb77Br
	For something of such importance, rather than another election to be rerun after a few years, I think it should have been cleaner.

No argument here, but it wasn't. And the claims made by the political party not even in power were just claims. And folk bought them as truth.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	1. The first referendum was orchestrated by a bunch of politicians who've all walked away from acting out the consequences of the result. That in itself, would warrant a second referendum in my book. Any future campaigning would be entirely different to the original because the majority of the lead actors are gone, and the 'audience' are better informed of the consequences. 2. I believe the various stages of the process should be a continuous consultation with the electorate, no matter how laborious it becomes.

Your forgetting about the referendum party from 1994-1997. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum_Party

My favourite fund manager Terry Smith had something to say, starts about 4.36 on the video "The hidden debt that threatens us all" https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=Efs5lwUMy4o

As Judy Clements before his introduction said 'People gave their lives in 2 World wars for to give us a free & Sovereign nation" "if it was worth fighting for then, it's worth fighting for now" I guess the kids of today who believe their future freedom is being taken away need to stand back for a moment.

[marton]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Your forgetting about the referendum party from 1994-1997. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum_Party My favourite fund manager Terry Smith had something to say, starts about 4.36 on the video "The hidden debt that threatens us all" https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=Efs5lwUMy4o As Judy Clements before his introduction said 'People gave their lives in 2 World wars for to give us a free & Sovereign nation" "if it was worth fighting for then, it's worth fighting for now" I guess the kids of today who believe their future freedom is being taken away need to stand back for a moment.

Jingoistic, the first world war was not about "a free & Sovereign nation" in fact historians are unable to agree on the reason for the first world war.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	marton
	Jingoistic, the first world war was not about "a free & Sovereign nation" in fact historians are unable to agree on the reason for the first world war.

So do you agree the second was?, where more people died & where more voters will remember. Hardly surprising older people voted leave.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Your forgetting about the referendum party from 1994-1997. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum_Party My favourite fund manager Terry Smith had something to say, starts about 4.36 on the video ...

I'm not forgetting about them at all. I know the referendum was a hell of a long time coming. It's been talked about for all my adut life.

As for Terry Smith... I'm refering to politician. Remember them? The people we elect to represent our best interests? Not the Terry Smiths and Aaron Banks of this this World who couldn't get elected in a one horse race. Democracy vs fund managers? Now that would be a great thesis.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Hardly surprising older people voted leave.

There is absolutely zero empirical evidence of that. Election ballots are private, so any 'data' claiming this would be based upon a huge amount of supposition.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	I'm not forgetting about them at all. I know the referendum was a hell of a long time coming. It's been talked about for all my adut life. As for Terry Smith... I'm refering to politician. Remember them? The people we elect to represent our best interests? Not the Terry Smiths and Aaron Banks of this this World who couldn't get elected in a one horse race. Democracy vs fund managers? Now that would be a great thesis.

There was no referendum in 1994-97, the referendum your thinking of was in 1975.

He was a Banking analyst & Author at the time.

	Quote:	Blueangel
	There is absolutely zero empirical evidence of that. Election ballots are private, so any 'data' claiming this would be based upon a huge amount of supposition.

I thought it was a factoid that the young people wanted to remain, when in reality the majority or all ages wanted to leave. Pleased we cleared that up.

[Blueangel]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I thought it was a factoid that the young people wanted to remain...

Then you'd thought wrong, and until the day when ballots are not private, it will be purely a guess and not a fact.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	So do you agree the second was?, where more people died & where more voters will remember. Hardly surprising older people voted leave.

For someone to have living memory of WWII at the time of the 2016 referendum, they would have to be 75+yrs old. Nobody can prove what proportion of that age group voted which way. Period.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	Blueangel
	Then you'd thought wrong, and until the day when ballots are not private, it will be purely a guess and not a fact. For someone to have living memory of WWII at the time of the 2016 referendum, they would have to be 75+yrs old. Nobody can prove what proportion of that age group voted which way. Period.

All fairly irrelevant in the end as the majority wanted to leave. Period.